Interstellar (Christopher Nolan) *SPOILERS FROM POST 458 ONWARDS*

Scubadevils

OK, I've not seen this yet so I haven't read any posts! I was going to book it for tomorrow night in the imax Dublin but can only get either front (or 3-4 rows from the front) centre or reasonable choice to both side rows. Having never been to imax before, I'm not sure how good those seats will be - is it worth waiting till another time to get centre and further back from the front?

Mickeroo

Scubadevils wrote: »

OK, I've not seen this yet so I haven't read any posts! I was going to book it for tomorrow night in the imax Dublin but can only get either front (or 3-4 rows from the front) centre or reasonable choice to both side rows. Having never been to imax before, I'm not sure how good those seats will be - is it worth waiting till another time to get centre and further back from the front?

Can't comment on the the dublin screens but I was in the third row at the Maxx screen in cork a while back for a film and it was awful. I don't think I'd go to a screen like that again unless I was sitting well back and in the centre. Obviously the Dublin screens might be better set up though.

Scubadevils

Mickeroo wrote: »

Can't comment on the the dublin screens but I was in the third row at the Maxx screen in cork a while back for a film and it was awful. I don't think I'd go to a screen like that again unless I was sitting well back and in the centre. Obviously the Dublin screens might be better set up though.

Cheers, yeah I was thinking any of the first few rows would be out of the question - looking at the seating plan they look just too close. Debating more whether the seats to the side would be any use, I can get about 10 rows back to the side alright still.

DoYouEvenLift

Scubadevils wrote: »

OK, I've not seen this yet so I haven't read any posts! I was going to book it for tomorrow night in the imax Dublin but can only get either front (or 3-4 rows from the front) centre or reasonable choice to both side rows. Having never been to imax before, I'm not sure how good those seats will be - is it worth waiting till another time to get centre and further back from the front?

It's not a real IMAX screen anyway so if you can get a better seat in another big screen it'd be better to go there

Scubadevils

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

It's not a real IMAX screen anyway so if you can get a better seat in another big screen it'd be better to go there

Ah ok - maybe I'll stick with somewhere like Swords so! Cheers.

Japandamo

Just back from the cinema. Really enjoyed most of the film, but like others I had difficulty hearing some of the dialogue.

I really liked the 7 years for every hour relativity issue on the first planet, found both the other worlds were very interesting, and thought Damon was really good in the part of good scientist gone bonkers.

To be honest though, once Coop went into the black hole at the end, I think it would have made more sense for him to stay there, leave the message for Murph, so she knew he hadn't abandoned her and could save humanity. Rather than being picked up floating in space. I mean you're 'lucky' if a ship happens across you drifting in the ocean...to have people just happen upon both you AND your machine friend (which they don't bother to try to fix) drifting around Saturn with only a few minutes of air left in your tank...meh.

Still, there were more parts and concepts that I liked than I didn't.

Dempsey

As good as the sound track was, it wont beat john murphys soundtrack...

Adamantium

Ok a few days have past and I have to reconsider

I have to say I still prefer Sunshine (which is a sci fi masterpiece and is the 2001 of this generation, can't believe I missed in a cinema) and Gravity(which is a perfect action thriller/survival story, the reentry is the most Awe inspiring thing I've ever seen and heard in a cinema).
Plus nothing will beat

Capa's jump and the time dilation of the last few minutes of the 3rd act and that perfect final shot.

When Cooper saw his daughter through the bookcase I thought, I could swat the convenience/contrived nature of it away, but not anymore.

I now can only think of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-yTpaESzkU

DoYouEvenLift

Adamantium wrote: »

Ok a few days have past and I have to reconsider

I have to say I still prefer Sunshine (which is a sci fi masterpiece and is the 2001 of this generation, can't believe I missed in a cinema) and Gravity(which is a perfect action thriller/survival story, the reentry is the most Awe inspiring thing I've ever seen and heard in a cinema).
Plus nothing will beat

Capa's jump and the time dilation of the last few minutes of the 3rd act and that perfect final shot.

When Cooper saw his daughter through the bookcase I thought, I could swat the convenience/contrived nature of it away, but not anymore.

I now can only think of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-yTpaESzkU

I loved sunshine as well

but that whole zombieesque part kind of took away from it

, the music was amazing also

the_monkey

expectationlost wrote: »

the wormhole was gone, it was said in the film afaik. as to how he can get back to Brand?

Lalalalalalalalalal I can't hear you ... :d
Fair enough , I'll look out for it on 2nd viewing ...

5uspect

Overall I enjoyed it but there were a lot of annoying things that prevent it from being great. I'll definitely pick up the Bluray and rewatch.

Maybe I missed something, but why did the Ranger need a multistage launch when it would launch itself into orbit from the first planet with twice earth's gravity? Was there extra cargo?

Leopardhyena

5uspect wrote: »

Overall I enjoyed it but there were a lot of annoying things that prevent it from being great. I'll definitely pick up the Bluray and rewatch.

Maybe I missed something, but why did the Ranger need a multistage launch when it would launch itself into orbit from the first planet with twice earth's gravity? Was there extra cargo?

To save fuel.

Yarf Yarf

Saw it in the Imax last night. Thought the visuals were amazing, but the writing lets it down. The dialogue is cringey in places and the contrived ending was utterly laughable.

Calibos

Leopardhyena wrote: »

To save fuel.

Try and rationalise it all you want but it doesn't make sense. The Nolans hired an astrophysicist for the wormhole and Blackhole visuals. Hawking and Tyson only validated the astrophysics of the movie. They did not consult with any Rocket Scientists or engineers.

Craft needing a Saturn V to launch from earth yet under its own power from a planet with 1.4x earth gravity came from the same guy that said that the wormhole closed at the end of the movie meaning MmcG flew off to find Brant on a planet in another Galaxy at least 2 million light-years away in a small one man craft. ie. Nolans brother. ie. The scriptwriters don't really have a clue themselves.

Wormholes or warp drives are a sci-fi plot device to get around relativistic time dilation. Remove the Wormhole and have MmcG fly a relativistic craft to Andromeda to find Brant and time dilation means that the trip might be a few days for Cooper alright but 2 million years will have passed on Brants planet in Andromeda. ie. Cooper won't find Brant. He'll find what ever species of humanoid evolved from Brant and the embryos over the last 2 million years. Remember, we ourselves were proto-apes 2 million years ago. Cooper heads home to our solar system in the Milky Way Galaxy disappointed and finds that the 4 million light year round trip means 4 million years passed here....and he thought the time dilation he experienced caused by be too close to Gargantua was bad!!

Look, it boils down to this. Ignorance is bliss. If people are not into science, thats fine. Blissful Ignorance means a lot of this movie won't bug you and you can enjoy it for the visuals and emotion or whatever. However, for those of us who have a little more knowledge of science either through careers or simple interest in the subject, we are not as blissfully ignorant and thus a lot more of the plot doesn't make sense or is illogical and the visuals can't prevent us overlooking that.

(Me. I got a B in Pass maths, don't have a third level education, work in retail...but have an interest in science and technology. I am not claiming intellectual superiority over anyone here in my postings, I know a little about a lot as opposed to a lot about a little)

5uspect

Leopardhyena wrote: »

To save fuel.

That doesn't really make sense. Did the rocket contain whatever fuel the Ranger's apparently considerably more efficient engines required as a cargo?
If it were a rare material then it's possibly passable but surely it makes sense to lift as much cargo and fuel as possible to the main ship if such super efficient engine technology existed. I know there was belief talk about it being their last Ranger.

The only reason I saw for the multistage launch was entirely for cinematic purposes, it was a nice homage to The Right Stuff. After that they threw all that out the window and went for full on sci-fi VTOL to orbit.

FlyingIrishMan

5uspect wrote: »

That doesn't really make sense. Did the rocket contain whatever fuel the Ranger's apparently considerably more efficient engines required as a cargo?
If it were a rare material then it's possibly passable but surely it makes sense to lift as much cargo and fuel as possible to the main ship if such super efficient engine technology existed. I know there was belief talk about it being their last Ranger.

The only reason I saw for the multistage launch was entirely for cinematic purposes, it was a nice homage to The Right Stuff. After that they threw all that out the window and went for full on sci-fi VTOL to orbit.

The ranger has a certain amount of fuel, they can use half that fuel launching directly from earth in it, or save all of it and use a launch rocket. Can't explain it any simpler than that.

5uspect

FlyingIrishMan wrote: »

The ranger has a certain amount of fuel, they can use half that fuel launching directly from earth in it, or save all of it and use a launch rocket. Can't explain it any simpler than that.

I've a degree in aeronautics and a PhD in fluid mechanics, can you dumb it down a bit more for me?

Surely they can refuel it from the main ship? Or is there only a single tank of magic go juice for the single Ranger for the duration of the entire movie? Because that's some seriously revolutionary energy density right there in a craft so small. Have they lost the technology to produce more of this super fuel? Maybe it's bio-diesel or something.

FlyingIrishMan

5uspect wrote: »

I've a degree in aeronautics and a PhD in fluid mechanics, can you dumb it down a bit more for me?

Surely they can refuel it from the main ship? Or is there only a single tank of magic go juice for the single Ranger for the duration of the entire movie? Because that's some seriously revolutionary energy density right there in a craft so small. Have they lost the technology to produce more of this super fuel? Maybe it's bio-diesel or something.

Perhaps they did refuel it at the endurance, or perhaps they didn't, the endurance needed the fuel too. Main point is the fuel is in limited supply, and launching from a rocket conserves it. Unless they can make the fuel in space, their supply will always be limited.

DoYouEvenLift

Why don't some reviewers just actually write movies? They criticise the smallest things in some movies and it makes you wonder why they don't go and write a flawless movie themselves lol? If you're capable of pointing out flaws in movies you should be capable of preventing them in one


If I was ever writing a movie I'd get 10 of the biggest cynical kunt reviewers to work alongside us in the script reading, shooting and editing process to point out everything that's possibly wrong.

Roquentin

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Why don't some reviewers just actually write movies? They criticise the smallest things in some movies and it makes you wonder why they don't go and write a flawless movie themselves lol? If you're capable of pointing out flaws in movies you should be capable of preventing them in one


If I was ever writing a movie I'd get 10 of the biggest cynical kunt reviewers to work alongside us in the script reading, shooting and editing process to point out everything that's possibly wrong.

those who can, do; those who cant, teach; and those who cant do neither become critics.

food critics cant cook, some football journalists have never even kicked a football......

But they are only around because people read what they say.

Dan_Solo

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Why don't some reviewers just actually write movies? They criticise the smallest things in some movies and it makes you wonder why they don't go and write a flawless movie themselves lol? If you're capable of pointing out flaws in movies you should be capable of preventing them in one


If I was ever writing a movie I'd get 10 of the biggest cynical kunt reviewers to work alongside us in the script reading, shooting and editing process to point out everything that's possibly wrong.

Well I guess then if you've never made a $150m movie yourself you're not qualified to tell us if Interstellar is any good or not.

Mister Vain

Just back from seeing it. Overall I thought it was very good. I was surprised just how moving it is; some very emotional scenes for a sci fi film. Visually it was great too. I thought it dwindled towards the end though. The worst thing was the over powering soundtrack which rendered a lot of the dialog inaudible. It was the same with TDKR but this was even worse. They seriously need to sort that shyte out. It's really turning me off going to the cinema.

catallus

Roquentin wrote: »

those who can, do; those who cant, teach;

Sorry, but it's "Those who know, do, those who understand, teach!"

Not that modern perversion of the saying.

The role of the critic is important in culture.

Roquentin

catallus wrote: »

Sorry, but it's "Those who know, do, those who understand, teach!"

Not that modern perversion of the saying.

The role of the critic is important in culture.

now are you happy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

woody allen, an esteemed film maker said it........good luck to you

Roquentin

catallus wrote: »

Sorry, but it's "Those who know, do, those who understand, teach!"

Not that modern perversion of the saying.

The role of the critic is important in culture.

in case you think i made it up: read this.....

http://nitelifeexchange.com/cabaret/cabaret-reviews-mainmenu-27/1859-the-art-of-criticism-one-critics-perspective.html

catallus

Look, I'm just pointing out that it's a deliberately modern corruption of a phrase by Aristotle.

Shaw, anyone? Man and Superman?

Burky126

Duggy747 wrote: »

The "love has to mean something" monologue from Hathaway's character was dire and felt too sudden and far out of character for someone who, up till that point, was a steely and rational person determined on the survival of the race.................not wanting to see the guy she was in love with and going to that planet because of "a feeling", which was because of her stubbornness to not return to the ship on the water planet that cost a life and time itself.

She nearly screwed the whole mission up and then wanted to pick a planet based on a feeling, not on the data those lives sacrificed themselves for.

I knew her speech would be vital towards something later in the film and sure enough we got to the multi-dimensional scene where love is revelaed to be the vital component in the communication that saves humanity, essentially proving Hathaway right all along. Bleurgh.

A great cinematic experience and despite it's faults, I was still happy to see a sci-fi movie of this budget and caliber in the cinema which didn't treat it's audiences like complete morons.

This was something that bugged me about her character.I didn't get the contridiction here and this feeling could of been transplanted to the other crew members which were hardly developed.

In saying that,I did enjoy Interstellar! Not a big Nolan fan but was surprised at how engaged I was in the story despite the flaws and heavy hand nature of the storytelling (I know,it's something Nolan does a lot,was expecting this going in.) It's by no means a masterpiece but a great concept albeit a weakly executed one.

mewe

Went to see this earlier. It's not perfect by any means but it had moments of brilliance.

Early on i found it wasn't really working and the script was weak but by the end i was won over by the cinematic experience of some of it.

As i feel at the end of most Christopher Nolan films, his ambition is to be admired.

DoYouEvenLift

mewe wrote: »

Went to see this earlier. It's not perfect by any means but it had moments of brilliance.

Early on i found it wasn't really working and the script was weak but by the end i was won over by the cinematic experience of some of it.

As i feel at the end of most Christopher Nolan films, his ambition is to be admired.

What would've made it perfect?

Calibos

5uspect wrote: »

I've a degree in aeronautics and a PhD in fluid mechanics, can you dumb it down a bit more for me?

Surely they can refuel it from the main ship? Or is there only a single tank of magic go juice for the single Ranger for the duration of the entire movie? Because that's some seriously revolutionary energy density right there in a craft so small. Have they lost the technology to produce more of this super fuel? Maybe it's bio-diesel or something.

We're not alone!

http://youtu.be/VUhA8eSx6pQ?t=9m7s